[E-trademarks] Off Topic Copyright Question New Version vs Derivative Work

[Sam Castree]

Dear Richard,

I don't specifically remember there being anything in the online copyright
registration form about whether something is a derivative work.  There is a
page in which you disclaim any prior registrations and other preexisting
material that isn't being registered, so the previous registration number
would be included there.  But I don't think that you have to specify
anything about derivative works.

Cheers,

Sam Castree, III

*Sam Castree Law, LLC*
*3421 W. Elm St.*
*McHenry, IL 60050*
*(815) 344-6300*



On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:30 PM Richard Straussman via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Colleagues who do lots of copyright registrations:
>
> (I thought that there was a separate Copyright list, but can't seem to
> find any past messages in my Inbox).
>
>     I am trying to discern, for purposes of filing for copyright
> registration, whether the following (somewhat fictitious, but analogous)
> fact pattern would represent filing for registration of a "new version" or
> merely a derivative work (I know that a new version IS ITSELF a derivative
> work).
>
>     Assume a person created and published an 8 page research paper 5 years
> ago and at the time person got a copyright registration for it as a
> published work.  Now, the person creates an 80 page booklet that includes,
> substantially *verbatim* scattered throughout, about 5 pages of text from
> their copyrighted work, albeit not necessarily always contiguous.  All of
> the rest (for which they would now seek registration as an unpublished
> work) is new and original to them and the rest would be properly identified
> as subject to the prior copyright.
>
>     My question is:  Is the new work specifically to be identified as a
> "new version" or merely as a derivative work?  As a practical matter, does
> it make a difference with respect to validity in any way if we call it a
> derivative work and it really is a "new version" or vice versa?
>
>     I know that the Copyright Office can get pedantic about trivial things
> (cue sarcasm - unlike the USPTO), so I would like to be correct on this
> point, since the bulletins from the Copyright Office make a distinction,
> there must be SOME reason.
>
>     Thanks in advance!!
>
> --
> *Richard Straussman*
>
>
> *Senior Counsel Registered Patent Attorney * Member NY, NJ & CT Bars
> *. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
> *Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
> *Intellectual Property Law*
> 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401 (PLEASE NOTE THE SUITE CHANGE)
> Roseland, NJ 07068
> *direct line* 973.403.9943
> *main* 973.403.9940
> *fax* 973.403.9944
> *e-mail* rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
>
>
> *http://www.weitzmanip.com <http://www.weitzmanip.com/> *
>
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240201/4326d175/attachment.htm>